Lease hopefully announces what is at stake. Hopefully, it is colorful and draws you in. I hope as nature as a saint, is nature as we know her is no saint is that kind of title. You may think because the lecture is about melville, that it is a melville quote, but it is a walt emerson quote. A contemporary of melville, someone who was in his intellectual orbit. Someone who was addressing some of the same kind of questions and concerns that melville was. So nature as we know it is drawn from Ralph Waldo Emersons essay called experience in 1884. He is trying to say what would our lives be like . How would we make sense of ourselves . How would we make sense of our moral world if we came into original relationship with the universe . That is to say, we did not have our inherited religion telling us to make sense of our world. We didnt have europe saying to the new world here is how to make sense of yourself and your new world. What would it be like if we took our experience as, in fact, the indication of what right and wrong is. Why cant experience me the fund of our meeting making . And then he goes on to show us why that is so hard to do. Yes, experience is a thorny thing. He wrestles with it in the piece. What i love about this piece is not only the title, which why ill explain in a little bit, but the way he opens up the essay. Call me ishmael is one of the great opening lines. Emerson gives us one of the great opening lines of a modern essay. He opens up asking where do we find ourselves . It is a very arresting and in it you hear emerson trying to question himself. Where is he morally speaking . The rest of the essay is trying to a right himself. I love that question, where we find ourselves . I think it is a nice way of taking stock of where we find ourselves in this class. We find ourselves in the educational science building, not the educational building where we started out. We find ourselves on october 5. We find ourselves on week six of the course, seven deadly sins of American History. You know what we are doing. We are using the seven deadly sins as a way of understanding American History on the early contact up to our own day. What are the seven deadly sins . We struggle with those a little on the first day. Wrath, envy, gluttony, lust, greed. Loth there is no sin without context. In a 2010 study of the seven deadly sins. You know theres another way like to put this. There is no sin without history. It does not make sense to talk about sins without talking about a historical moment in which it is articulated or expressed and punished. Another way of putting it is that sins have a history and that is what we are trying to figure out. What kind of history does pride, gluttony, wrath sloth , have in america . How do they open up something about a particular in life . We start with the colonial. And we go up to our own day and we are seeing how these sins get made and remade into American Intellectual and cultural life. One of the things we are seeing, even in the early weeks of our course, is that ideas about then have a racial component about sin have a result component racial component. One is not necessarily a sin for one race or ethnicity or religion is not necessarily considered a sin for another. Weve seen how notions of sin are gendered. Even the language that is used to describe certain types of sin , we discussed this last week with lust in colonial america, how it is gendered either as male or female. We have not yet done this, because we were only in week six. One of the things were going to do is look at inversions. Onceomething is considered to be a sin against go it gets made into a cultural virtue. One of those things is gluttony. In puritan america, and an absolute must of the turn of the last century with the rise of modern consumer culture. Only thatrning not good and evil have history, but we are also paying a lot of attention to how, as historians thats all of us in this class now, how we use sources to try and access those moral worlds. To whatry and listen in the motivations are different historical actors. So, for the last couple of weeks, we explored lust in colonial america. Now we are moving forward, in the early republic of to the eve of the civil war. We can call that antebellum america. The sin we are now exploring is wrath. We are exploring wrath. And we are using one particular primary source, because by added another one if i added another one, you would kill me. So, just one. It is a big one. What source are we using to listen in on concepts of wrath in the antebellum period . Moby dick. Wonderful, yes. Why moby dick . I have to say i told a colleague of mine who is an former professor at harvard, a melville and american renaissance expert. I told him that i was teaching a seven deadly sins class and i was teaching moby dick. And he said wonderful, pride. [laughter] lets just put it this way, i think there is some pride going on here. Some dangerous pride, some reckless pride. I dont want moby dick to be motto vocal. There are other sins going on here like lust. We have to think about it. I dont want to insist that is the only thing we are going to hear. But for now, im making you do the heavy lifting on wrath. I think im in good company for making a choice. Pulsar john paul rte thought it was an imposing monuments. Can i have someone read it . Bursts beneath the thrust of the cancer. There is an idea of hatred just as there is an idea of whiteness and of the whale hunt. It involves the whole man in the whole human conditions. This is a novel of hatred. It is many other things. It is not only that, but it is also that. So, what i why i chose moby dick. I just wanted to make sure you read moby dick. It will be a book that you take with you for the rest of your life. If not, you can come back and we can talk about it. At the very least, i want to make sure you have read it. Also because i think there is hatred, anger, what we call wrath just seething in particular characters, moments. That is why it i think it is a terrific source for the sin of wrath. Lets go back to emerson. Have any of you ever read any emerson . Next, a little bit . Is that the name thats familiar. Have you read thoreau . Thoreau tends to be read more. If youd know emerson, you probably think of him as an on person to becoming and talking to us about wrath because his reputation is of a sweetie pie. A positive thinker. A motivational speaker with the attitude of just go for it. This is the emerson we get, not the emerson who cuts with a knife. I want to introduce you to the emerson who topples our equilibrium. So why pick emerson here to help us listen into wrath at this moment . I think he is in conversation with melville. They are contemporaries. They are seeing the same moral worlds and problems of the mid19th century america. They are in conversation. But also, if for no other reason than to remind us what we already know, which is no one text is representative of any text. We saw that looking at different sources. Any source you are going to pick as a historical source is blinkered, is limited in some way. Just as we cant ask even though melville wrote this monuments, he is not a representative thinker. He is not speaking for the whole of america. He is speaking for himself. But he is a particularly perceptive observer. He is a particularly articulate commentator. The only way to make sense of melvilles to put him in the dialogue with other thinkers from his day. One of those is emerson. Right now, i want emerson to do a little work for us. And some of the issues that melville is wrestling with in moby dick. Im going to read this. I think that is the intensity of this quote. He writes, nature as we know her is no saint. The lights of the church, the shetics, the grand might , does not this and wish by any distinguish by any favor. She comes eating. Her darlings, the great, the strong, the beautiful or not the children of our loss, do not come out of the sunday school norway their food, nor punctually keep the commandments. Does anyone want to try to take that on . As one writer put it, emerson worked with lightning strikes that even at the level of singler singular, he is telling us something. Nature as we know her is no saint. The lights of the church, the aesthetics, the gin choose, the grahamites. She does not distinguish by any favor. Hes basically saying the nature has no moral code. We dont really view nature as people. Kyle, you had your hand up too . It doesnt have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. It will just come and destroy. Nature does not also have favorites. Get the christian, the aesthetics, the gentoos, none of them have a lock on knowing the truth. She does not have any favorites. She does not distinguish. ,his is a very pluralistic move saying no religion has a lock on the whole. He wants a firsthand relationship with the universe. He says guess what . Im not going to think that the or theor asceticism grahamight performers, any one of them will help me understand nature better. I dont want that relationship and that nature isnt a saint. She comes eating, and drinking, and sinning. Her darling, the great, the strong the beautiful, are not children of our law. What does that mean . It doesnt account for that. Commandments and and weighing your food are not weighing food. ,t the construct from humans not something animals think about. It is not something that nature thinks about. It does not respect our little codes of ethics. It does not respect our sense of propriety. Does not respect our ends of right and wrong. So if you want to come with a right relationship with the universe, at least forgetting, or criticizing these religions that think they have a lock on code that we think is going to help us, that is not put us into that delusional original relationship. I think we see an melville, is not always a happy one. Nature is no saint. I can hear melville getting upset. He does not need emerson. And yet we hear him saying something. Its not the exact same thing, but it is in conversation with emerson. This is a neck served an excerpt from a letter he writes to a your friend daniel hawthorne. Nathaniel hawthorne. A popular, very accomplished author and his own day. Herman melville was very good friends with him and in the letter of 1851, which is the year moby dick was published, melville was praising hawthorne or his literary field of genius. His ability to be unafraid of the darkness and the universe. What he is praising hawthorne for doing is saying this is an inscrutable universe, but you have the courage to say no. What we hear is him confessing about something and himself. And im going to have someone read this. Gwyneth, you want to do that . Perhaps, after all, there is no secret. We are inclined to think that god cannot explain his own secret. That he would like a Little Information about certain points himself. We mortals astonish him as much. It is this being of the matter, their lives, the knot with which we joke ourselves. As soon as you say me, a god, and nature, thats when you jump off from your stool. And hang from the beam. Yes, that word is the hangman. Take god out of the dictionary and you will have him in the street. I find that last line confusing so i had to read it and reread it and reread it. Lets just hold off on the last line, but is as important it is important. Can someone put this in terms that are more resonant in terms of how we talk in 2015. Take it line by line. So, he is talking here about the universe. The world. Life. When he says, perhaps there is no secret and then go on. Someone do a guess. There are many of you that i know are good at this. Kyle . Im not 100 sure. Of course youre not. It kind of sounds like leaving in god holds us back believing in god, we are holding ourselves to the truth. Thinking there is this other being, or us believing in something we already know is false. Like hes saying there is no secret. God cannot explain his own secrets. Because there is none, theres nothing that he has that we dont. Perfect. Think about the odd inversion. He says we are inclined that god cannot explain his secrets. And he would like a Little Information upon certain points himself. What . God needs a little points of help . We have an omission of an allknowing god. We mortals astonish him as he astonishes us. That is not saying there is a god. That is a saying if there is a god, we are mutually mystified in both directions. That gets in the way of a god that is allknowing. It goes on, but it is this being of the matter with which we choke ourselves. As soon as you say me, god, nature, so soon you jump off the stool. What . So soon as you say the word me, god, nature, yourself, you die . What . Once you are so sure of the universal idea, putting something so far above you, you are so sure. Thats when you could just kill yourself. You kick the stool out from under you. You hang it, you joke, you die. You dont get from any closer to this question of being. Which is for him, the heart of the matter. He says that word is a hangman. Take god out of the dictionary and you would have him in the street. Im not going to subject the last line to exit jesus. Followup to say about that last line is keep it in mind as you read moby dick. Think about the people who populate that vote that boat. I dont want to insist on this because there are a million interpretations, but what if you think about that line take god out of the dictionary and think about god as the man in the street. I think that is a helpful way to at least listen into who are these characters that populate the pequot, and what is he trying to tell his about them . Dishonest for me to fidget with this quote, but if i could have, i would have snuck in another word here. , i thinkhave been sin thats true for melville. It would have been historically inaccurate, but also true. That he would say the same thing about the word sin. Sin is a hangman word. It doesnt get us any closer to or is emerson says, that original relationship to the universe. Next week, were going to bear down in the text. Were going to really work with this as a primary source for listening into mid19th century america. Were going to subject whole chapters to interpretation. Even the resonant phrase. Were going to see if we can hear what melville is trying to tell us across the expanse that separates him from the america of 1851 and our america of 2015. About what he means by god. What he thinks about individual sin, or in this case, social sin. Not just sin of the singular figure, but next week is about zooming in or bearing down, but for today, we are zooming out. Taking a panoramic view. We want to take a more broad look about america and the mid19th century to see what he is seeing. What moral problems does he think he is confronting in the text. We want to look a little bit at the context of moby dick and what it tells us about melvilles mind. His view of the world. So, remember, his mind and you of the world are a product of his own time and place. He is a commentator, but he is living it too. He does not have any special perch on which he can comment on what is right and wrong in america mid19th century. He, himself a shaped by those ideas. We dont want to just use his mind as a way of looking at america. By listing in or paying attention to the mind is itself an expression of the moral worlds in American Life at that time. If moby dick is a novel of hatred, let us not forget it is also a novel of lying. There is not just hating going on, there is desiring, and wanting. We want to listen for that too. Every sin has its counterpart. Every negative emotion has its positive side. So i want you to listen as this book is a confession. It is a confession, but also a commentary on social criticism. So what issues or at lease what issues are at least what issues are pressing on his moral imagination . Going to touch on at least three. Very speedy, not getting indeed, but just to alert you that might be sources of things being commented on any text. Once we do this, then come back in about 10 minutes the first context, if you will, of melvilles midcentury america is that he is writing this at a time of intense fervor and liberalization. We see staggering growth and diverse a vacation. Protestantism under growing staggering growth and diversification with the proliferation of different sects , the different profits and movements, all aimed at reforming American Society and bringing it closer in line with their interpretation of the bible and the word of god. It is a time of intense religious pluralism and fervor. Its also, interestingly, a time of intense liberalization. I dont like the other word that we tend to use, secularization. Seems to so massively overshoot the mark. Aboutridiculous to talk 19thcentury america is somehow becoming increasingly secular. If i secular, we mean not religious. Meanlar, m we worldly, then yes. That is people are not becoming less religious, they are just trying to bring their religious thoughts more line with the time. I think the better word is liberalization. That is religion as a gets press religious sensibility as a gets pressed through a gets press through enlightenment ideals of rationality and reason. The enlightenment doesnt get rid of religion, but it helps to reconstitute some forms of protestantism. That goes on to be what we call liberal protestantism. Verylles new england is much part of this liberalization of christianity. He is living in it. But i think he is critical of it. I think you can hear that in the text. Historian, anne douglas put it, moby dick was a article a critique of liberal protestantism. What we see in moby dick, is that melville craves some view of the world that is sublime. Not beautiful. That is mysterious, nonsensical. Not sensible. A god who is inscrutable and not what we would later here and the 19th century in the 19th century. A religion in which jesus is your friend. Ive got a friend in jesus. Melville doesnt want god to be his friend. If there is going to be a god, its going to be a god worthy of all and admiration and terror awe and admiration and terror. We see melville pushing back against this liberalizing tendency in product is schism in protestantism. It that melville needed calvinism for his moral imagination. He was an aesthetic calvinist. Does that make sense . So its like someone who is catholic, but does not actually believe in all the stuff. But loves the smells and bells, loves the liturgy. Theres a whole aesthetic to religion. You might not believe in you might not believe in the tenants, the worldview, but there may be something about it. The ritual, the architecture of the church, the smells of the church, the holidays. That one craves for his or her moral imagination. I think that is a good way of talking about melville. He did not believe it, but he needed it. For the stuff of his writing. And yet on the other hand, we also see in moby dick, and appreciation or differences and of religious difference and diversity. We see a longing for the returning of a more austere form of calvinism. At the same time, is very much in his day that he is looking around and sees at least somewhat open to and appreciative of diversity. Certainly to the idea that no one group has a lock on moral truth. So i think we can look at the novel and see he is wrestling with that. Melville is